Friday, August 24, 2007

Consolidating government services and community planning into larger, more representative bodies that share the costs, the benefits and the responsibilities of development is, at this point in local history, a good and necessary thing.

Is there a single human being not actually employed by the City, that is not in favor of more aggressive consolidation? Anyone?

That UPMC would record a $618 million profit seems a bit contradictory for an organization that functions as and describes itself as a nonprofit health system.

Now, if he would only get serious for a minute, and draw a connection between the city's financial distress -- and the way we bow and scrape to the city's most profitable venture, throwing up our hands and asking "What can we do?"

##

Marty Griffin, aka LandoCalrissian, exposes the risible state of the Mayor's "Pittsburgh Promise" on KDKA-TV. The Burr Reporr is amplifying. Smitty from the Flats provides background:

DEC 13,2006..it was one week or so after Luke announced with Onorato and Doyle at his side.The "promise" was pushed prematurely by Luke against Roosevelt's wishes. The timing between the mayoral announcement and the "promise announcement really seemed to sew up the nomination for Luke.It gave the appearance of "having it all together."We know the rest of the story.

If you don't connect the reference after about 20 seconds, you're not quite our kind of person. Or you prefer Star Trek.

I now acknowledge that the world of blogs can be a very useful, informative, and of course, entertaining tool that might become absolutely necessary to the political process. They’re just subject to abuse just like everything else good in this world. It just took me a while to separate the what from the chaff and reveal the delicious, nutritious bits.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Guys accused of illegally selling drugs, guys accused of illegally selling guns - Public Works employees - guys selling drugs off-duty, guys getting high at work, guys drinking, guys stealing gas ... a substantial number of people with criminal pasts ... what is the deal with so many employees with criminal pasts?

This is how KDKA'sMarty Griffin begins to engage Mayor Ravenstahl on the topic of criminality among city workers.

In turn, the Mayor reveals that last week, the City began doing background checks on all current city employees -- "absolutely yes."

However, he quickly made exceptions for the police and fire departments, for all union employees, and finally for all current Public Works employees. By the end, only new applicants to the Mayor's Office, the Law Department, and Parks & Recreation were cited as targets.

The reason to exclude union employees is of course existent collective bargaining agreements -- although the Mayor is declining his option to re-open the fire fighter's contract this year, which might have been advisable anyways, for financial reasons.

The reasons given to exclude Public Works are that it would be too costly, and that some of the felons who lied on their job applications deserve a second chance.

Left unsaid is the notion that there are cliques within the Department of Public Works that operate as semi-organized criminal syndicates -- using political influence, blackmail, and even threats of violence to protect their petty criminal enterprises.

We fully expected Ravenstahl to get a pass from the Ethics Board -- but not without making some acknowledgement that perceptions of impropriety are reasonable, though unfortunate.

"Although I accepted the invitation innocently and in established tradition, I can certainly understand the public concern. I am glad the City now has an Ethics Board to bring such matters to our attention, and in the future I will set an example by being more mindful of [blah blah blah.]"

But no. That might expose him to his many political bogeymen.

His answers were often transparent non-sequitors; a board member would return to the issue of common-sense perceptions, to which he would respond, "No, according to the code, I did nothing wrong."

It was particularly frustrating that he openly suggested that he might defy the Ethics Board in its attempt to bring clarity to the code, and to set reasonable Pittsbugher's minds at ease.

This was a golden opportunity for him to meet his reasoning critics halfway. A little mollifying rhetoric would certainly have impressed the Comet -- and we would have been happy to say so.

Instead, everyone who is paying the slightest attention remains suspicious and frustrated. This will only lead to more antagonistic press coverage, and the continued retardation of the political capital he so sorely requires.

If Luke is frustrated that he is not taken seriously, he should reflect that it has nothing to do with his actual age, and everything to do with his attitude toward things.

##

As to the Ethics Board itself, we can only guess that they are seeking to build some institutional credibility; "keeping their powder dry," as it were. Smacking down a mayor might have been biting off more than they could chew just yet-- and it might indeed have been inappropriate.

We trust they will be taking a slightly more strident tack behind closed doors, when it comes to amending the Code. This blog is not at all comfortable with rules that allow an interested party to underwrite such good times for public officials. It is a wide-open invitation to temptation.

##

Finally, we could not help but note that the Mayor once again testified that he accepted UPMC's invitation -- just as he revealed originally on Marty Griffin. No mention of the Penguins.

The price for one round of golf at the country club is just under $250 -- just under the limit of what a public official can accept in athletics events from any one interested party. Luke played two rounds of golf over two days.

Suspicious minds, who already feel antagonized by Ravenstahl's hard-line approach to the Ethics Code, must wonder whether the administration only retro-actively asked Mario to pick up one-half of UPMC's tab, in order to avoid some legal embarrassment.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

10:10 Pledge of allegiance. (Yes, really.) All five Ethics Board members present. No mayor yet.

10:12 Request that the media be respectful and non-intrusive.

10:13 Hail to the Chief!

10:14 Sister Hughes wants a constructive and positive conversation that can clarify how we can interpret the codes. We are committed to advancing high ethical standards that are practical and workable. Today is not a formal hearing. It is not a trial. It is an opportunity for dialogue.

10:16 Hughes opening statement. Concern is section 197.07 "Offering gifts or awards" A key question -- whether the invitees were an interested party. Public perceptions are important to consider, even if technically there may have been no law broken.

10:19 Luke: Committed to rigorous enforcement of city's code of conduct. He was determined to see this board become a vital watchdog of city ethics. It is not only your right, but your duty, to fully explore any matter of concern.

10:23 Luke: Proud to have been a participant, and to have accepted UPMC's invitation. (No mention of the Penguins, again.) "One's honor is the master of his fate."

10:24: Buechel: What criteria do you use to evaluate charitable events? Luke: I get invited to so many. Charity is great. When I get invited, I go. (Buechel looks slightly concerned)

10:25: Schiff: You're quoted as saying you have business conversations on the golf course. Are you concerned about the public perceptions of influence? Luke: No. In no way did I directly benefit. I was happy to be there to support the charity. Schiff: But UPMC provided you the benefit of being at this rather exclusive event, right? Luke: Code doesn't mention amounts for charity. $4,400 was raised for Animal Friends by auctioning off a dinner with himself and his wife -- was that "worth it" to the recipients?

10:28: Reverend: Couldn't the Mario Lemieux Foundation have just given you an invitation to be present? Also, exception six: something about persons doing business with the city. So why did UPMC get involved? Luke: "Perhaps". But the Foundation did not; UPMC did. Reverend: Do you not see the inconsistency with exception six? Luke: I'm not a lawyer, but I'm proud to support charity. (The brows we can see from our side of the table are furrowing.)

10:31 Buechel: City is delighted you like to play an active part of city life. But ... public could construe ... looks like privileged access. Shouldn't we maybe make some guidelines? Luke: More than willing to entertain that. But I want to caution you ... I'm pretty much going to do what I want anyway.

10:33 Schiff: Everyone would agree the Mayor's presence is important. But when it comes from a major corporation ... 197.07 Section F ... I suspect those dollar amounts were put in there to convey the message that larger benefits would raise flags. Luke: I'm not receiving monetary value. Mentions Yeshiva Dinner. "I would caution that if there was a limit, perhaps I would not have been able to attend that event." (Schiff is the rabbi)

10:36 Schiff: Follows up on that. Luke: Under no circumstances have I, or will I, influence planning commissions or other board and commissions that make city decisions. [Insert PittGirl's photo of Calvin & Hobbes laughing hysterically here]

10:37 Hughes: We'll make some recommendations. We hope you'll look 'em over. Luke: Kthxbai. Zacharias: Never spoke. Gang: We'll sort of follow up on this based on research and best practices, and maybe at the next meeting we'll talk about more stuff in response to however Luke responds. Adjourned.

Q: Your reaction? A: Mayor was very clear about how he interprets the code. Q: Does his differ from yours? A: We might have some suggestions to make. The rabbi had some good ideas about dollar amounts that suggest exclusivity. Q: $9,000 makes real bad perception? A: No, he did not receive $9,000. Q: What about UPMC? A: Code does not make that distinction clear. We've done research on other states, we'll make it part of the dialogue.

Q: Do you share Rabbi Schiff's concerns? A: Difficult for me to answer. Q: Can ethics panel make more than recommendations? Can you get things in the code? A: Oh yes, definitely. Check out the code. "Adopt rules and regulations." We definitely can offer that. Q: So this can go beyond dialogue? A: Yes, definitely.

Q: Newspaper account had a city legal adviser questioning your ability to do anything. A: NO, DESIMONE WAS CORRECT. WE NEEDED A FORMAL COMPLAINT, WHICH WE DID NOT HAVE. I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY. Mayo: Um, what? A: Making distinction the Comet does not quite understand. Boren: Pressure from law department? A: No way.

Q: Is this ongoing? A: No. From here on out, it'll probably be with the mayor informally and/or in executive session. Delano: charity exemption is confusing. A: It sure is. Mayo: If you have a quorum present, it's covered under sunshine law. A: [Long pause] I'll have to seek some advice on it.

The big three or four were sticking around for the Mayor to come out and subject himself to the press gaggle. The Comet looks forward to that footage.

The Trib'sJeremy Boren previews the hearing concerning Mayor Ravenstahl and the celebrity golf outing afforded him by the Penguins and UPMC.

"It's very unclear to me that they have any ability to sanction anyone at all, from a rookie cop up to the mayor," [Assistant City Solicitor Kate] DeSimone said.

How does she get that??

[Board Chair Sister Patrice] Hughes and board members Rabbi Daniel Schiff and Kathy Buechel have said publicly that they believe Ravenstahl might have violated the city's ethics code, which hurts their impartiality, DeSimone said. "If I were the mayor's attorney, I would ask for all three of them to be recused," DeSimone said.

For saying he might have violated the code? How can one justify holding a public hearing, without acknowledging there might have been a violation?

DeSimone believes the most the board could do is ask for an investigation into the mayor's conduct.If that request is made, it's likely a special investigator would be needed. She said that Acting City Solicitor George Specter said July 13 that Ravenstahl did not commit an ethical violation.

Monday, August 20, 2007

A short press release from the Mayor's office touting 2nd quarter financials says the following:

By continuing to hold the line on spending and with continued assistance from Harrisburg and the non-profit community, we are getting Pittsburgh's budget back on the right track.

It reminded us of a previous statement from the Mayor, in the wake of the Lemieux Invitational kerfuffle:

As Mayor, you cannot address matters of City business such as job growth, economic development, and payments in lieu of taxes without talking. During the Invitational issues importance to the City were discussed, including my trip to Harrisburg where I lobbied for state budget appropriations relevant to arena funding, and UPMC’s ongoing partnership with us to contribute payments in lieu of taxes.

We tried to research the current state of non-profit contributions, and the clearest we could find is this Feb. 26th Rich Lord piece:

As part of its recovery plan under state Act 47, the city in 2005 sought pledges of $6 million a year from nonprofit institutions. Those institutions put together an umbrella group called the Pittsburgh Public Service Fund, and 102 groups promised a total of $13.25 million over three years.

The deal expires after this year's $4.2 million payment, and the fund's board hasn't decided whether to give more.

Maybe there have been pledges of continued support, or a framework for such pledges, that we have not heard about?

With a little over four months remaining in this arrangement -- and with so many fruitful discussions having taken place in various settings -- it might be a good time for a status report.

If multiple officers can respond to a bogus noise complaint in Squirrel Hill, maybe a few should be reassigned to neighborhoods struggling with actual crime.

Like our jazz-and-gardening-obsessed neighbor, the Comet had its own car window smashed recently -- along with several others on our street. When police officers did arrive (in a little over an hour), they seemed confused as to why they were summoned.

One of the few questions they asked was, "How long have you lived in this neighborhood?" in a tone clearly meant to suggest, "Maybe you really shouldn't, if broken windows bother you so much?"

##

A Pittsburgh blogger is in dire peril. Matt H is currently vacationing in Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, which is due to get clobbered by a "catastrophic" category 5 hurricane.

Comet research corroborates his observations that even by securing an early 4:30 PM flight home today, our straight-talking rapscallion will be cutting it almost cinematically close -- particularly if he is departing from Cancun International Airport, on the very eastern edge of the peninsula.

##

The Family Guy is about to go into daily syndication a la The Simpsons, Friends, and Seinfeld. Let's see if they have any comments for us:

Disclaimers

All views expressed in these posts and in my own comments are my own and my own alone, and do not reflect the views of any of my employers, clients, partners or patrons, past or present, real or imagined. Adding comments is a privilege, not a right. The blog author reserves the right not to publish or to remove comments for any reason, which most often will include obscenity, harassment, personal attacks, "outing" people, attempts to make the blog unpalatable to others, ASOIAF book spoilers, incessant semi-coherent rambling, and malicious and/or knowing falsehood. However, the blog author is under no obligation to do so in a timely manner or in any other manner whatsoever, and is in no way responsible for any comments written on this blog by other parties. Please fact-check everything you read relating to politics scrupulously, especially on the Internet and especially in blog comments and on message boards.